Jung Functions and behaviour of reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity is the social expectation that people will respond to each other in kind—returning benefits for benefits, and responding with either indifference or hostility to harms."

We have to do with this norm every day with all people in our life, and I was thinking which functions are involved in such terms of behaviour.

For example, a lot of people are really responding in reciprocity, both in small thing (example: my friend doesn't help me when I need, so now I don't help him) or in big social/political terms.

On the other hand, a lot of people (at least to some extent) don't modify their behaviour, and they are more true (in good or bad) to their beliefs. For example, one of my friends said to me "I help him even if he didn't help me, because it's what I am and feel, and I don't go by what other people act".

So, I would ask which funtions are mainly involved in this behaviour?
Does Fe is more like to go with reciprocity and Fi follow only their our beliefs, maybe?
How the objective Ti act? And Te?

Interesting question. I'm kind of new to this, but it sounds like Fe to me. I agree that Fe goes with reciprocity and Fi follows beliefs. Not sure about Ti and Te though. I never thought of them as being involved in social behavior. If they are, I would think that Ti, being principle oriented, goes with following beliefs and Te goes with reciprocity.

This has been discussed in various Fe/Fi threads, but there's my take on it (ignoring inferior/tertiary functions):

Fe is much more about reciprocity and obligations than Fi is. For Fe, different kinds of relationships come with different kinds of obligations. If you friend is sick, you visit them. If someone is a close friend, you contact them regularly (and expect them to contact you in return). If someone does you a favor, you try to do him or her one in return.

At it's best, Fe creates a stable network of relationships in which each person gets reasonably regular feedback of their worth to others. I think of it a little bit like a RAM memory refresh cycle or a radar ping, in which regular pulses are sent out that clarify the state. Also, for Fe, non-response and non-participation tends to send a message that whomever doesn't value those relationships and/or isn't trustworthy.

Fi has a fairly different understanding that places a high value on authentic expression and acting out of values and in tune with one's emotional state. Fi is more likely to reject an expected social obligation if doing so would be insincere or not aligned with the current emotional state. Just as Ti optimizes for the moment in a logical way, Fi optimizes for moment in terms of values. This means that the expected, socially accepted thing may be perceived as not being the best thing to do at the moment.

While Fe looks at social customs and expectations as a language for expressing warm and worth, Fi tends to suspicious of obligation and expectation. Fi tends to ask, "If I'm doing something out of obligation, then how can you (or I) be sure it is sincere and authentic?" Fi would rather act in the absence of obligation, and have others do the same. Therefore, Fi tends to look on favors as gifts given without expectation, and relationships as existing relatively independently of rigid expectations and obligations.

At its worst, this can lead Fe folks to see Fi folks as flaky, uncaring, selfish and irresponsible. At their worst, Fi folks can see Fe folks as rigid, controlling, manipulative and insincere.

I think Te and Ti have similar dynamics, but conflicts tend to be less emotionally charged and can often be reduced by explanations of the reasoning on both sides (much harder to do with Fe/Fi). Still, Te clearly has a stabilizing influence and believes strongly in consistency across domains. Ti is more interested in optimizing for a particular problem domain or set of circumstances.

I would suspect that Te would favor reciprocity as a practical matter of consistency and predictability. Ti could clearly get there, too, but I suspect would be a more indirect route.

This is an interesting question. I'm an Fe user but a Ti dom. I believe very strongly that it's my duty to love everyone and help out when needed regardless of others' attitudes or behaviors towards myself, so I do. I really have to force myself, however. My instinct (I guess Fe) tells me "that guy that just tripped and hurt himself is usually a jerk, so fuck him" but I'm getting much better at ignoring that instinct and helping them up anyways.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that my belief, like all my beliefs, has a reason. My overarching goal is a utopia, and the best way to create a utopia is love everyone and help everyone without expectation of reciprocation. If I do that myself, it's far more likely for others to do the same. Eventually, everyone will be doing it and my goal will be reached. I'll have to do some other things too, of course.

This is an interesting question. I'm an Fe user but a Ti dom. I believe very strongly that it's my duty to love everyone and help out when needed regardless of others' attitudes or behaviors towards myself, so I do. I really have to force myself, however. My instinct (I guess Fe) tells me "that guy that just tripped and hurt himself is usually a jerk, so fuck him" but I'm getting much better at ignoring that instinct and helping them up anyways.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that my belief, like all my beliefs, has a reason. My overarching goal is a utopia, and the best way to create a utopia is love everyone and help everyone without expectation of reciprocation. If I do that myself, it's far more likely for others to do the same. Eventually, everyone will be doing it and my goal will be reached. I'll have to do some other things too, of course.